| Title |
Microarray experiments and factors which affect their reliability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biology Direct, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13062-015-0077-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roman Jaksik, Marta Iwanaszko, Joanna Rzeszowska-Wolny, Marek Kimmel |
| Abstract |
Oligonucleotide microarrays belong to the basic tools of molecular biology and allow for simultaneous assessment of the expression level of thousands of genes. Analysis of microarray data is however very complex, requiring sophisticated methods to control for various factors that are inherent to the procedures used. In this article we describe the individual steps of a microarray experiment, highlighting important elements and factors that may affect the processes involved and that influence the interpretation of the results. Additionally, we describe methods that can be used to estimate the influence of these factors, and to control the way in which they affect the expression estimates. A comprehensive understanding of the experimental protocol used in a microarray experiment aids the interpretation of the obtained results. By describing known factors which affect expression estimates this article provides guidelines for appropriate quality control and pre-processing of the data, additionally applicable to other transcriptome analysis methods that utilize similar sample handling protocols. This article was reviewed by Dr. Janet Siefert, Dr. Leonid Hanin, and Dr. I King Jordan. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 295 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 293 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 48 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 45 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 38 | 13% |
| Researcher | 23 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 5% |
| Other | 32 | 11% |
| Unknown | 94 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 74 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 50 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 39 | 13% |
| Unknown | 97 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2021.
All research outputs
#7,755,290
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#263
of 494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,343
of 268,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#9
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 494 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.